User talk:JustJanani/sandbox
What does the article do well?
Where do I see room for improvement or further development? Why?
What's the most important thing the author can do to improve the article?
Is the article well-organized? Does the structure make sense?
Did I notice anything about the article that could be applied to my own?
As a reader, what else would I want to know about the topic?
How well does the article follow Wikipedia's five key components?
Lead section:
Clear Structure
Balanced Coverage
Neutral Content
Reliable Sources
Lachlan's Peer Review
What does the article do well?
-The article provides an an excellent overview of the issue of Terrorism in Burkina Faso, and once published will stand as a useful resource for those interested in exploring the subject further. The writing is clear, the information well sourced, and the structure makes sense.
Where do I see room for improvement or further development? Why?
-While at this stage it is difficult to asses how comprehensive the final version will be, I would encourage well developed sections on Counter-terrorism Efforts and Impacts of Terrorism (to the extent that is possible, of course), as these sections have the potential to be the most complex and interesting. Additionally, the author has put a short description of why terrorism has increased in recent years under the subsection of List of Major Incidents. This seems to more directly address causes of terrorism, which could easily be made into a new subsection and possibly explored further. Lastly, I feel that the author should address the article's historical scope: if Burkina Faso had no terrorism prior to 2015, make that explicit, if they did, address it briefly.
What's the most important thing the author can do to improve the article?
-As stated above, the article's scope and comprehensiveness strike me as the most significant to keep an eye on, especially if the author wants to stay true to the article's relatively broad title. This doesn't have to require more writing, links to relevant articles could work too.
Is the article well-organized? Does the structure make sense?
-I find this article to be very well organized. The subsections are well chosen and well ordered, and flow nicely. The writing itself is clear as well.
Did I notice anything about the article that could be applied to my own?
-The article approaches a difficult, perhaps contentious topic evenhandedly and straightforwardly. As my topic also deals with controversial discussions of violence by state and non-state actors, this article provides a useful example.
As a reader, what else would I want to know about the topic?
-I would be interested in why external terrorist orgs target Burkina Faso specifically.
How well does the article follow Wikipedia's five key components?
Lead section:
-The lead section is well organized and introduces the reader to all the sections that the article develops further.
Clear Structure
-Structure is clear, flows well, and makes sense. I only felt that the heading of "List of Major Terrorist Incidents" was unclear, not knowing what defined a "major" incident.
Balanced Coverage
-Balance is difficult to assess at this point, but I have little doubt that each section will be well developed. As mentioned above, the article could benefit from a section on causes and a note on pre-2015 terrorism.
Neutral Content
-I see no biases in this article.
Reliable Sources
-The article uses an impressive number of citations from reputable sources. However, most of them are journalistic publications or government databases. More peer reviewed, scholarly work would improve the article (if available).
Lachlanbebout (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Lachlanbebout